The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentencing of the lower court (three years and six months of imprisonment) on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The sentencing on the basis of a statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope, on the basis of the statutory penalty.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing in the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction in our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the first instance sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion in light of the following factors: (a) the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing hearing and the sentencing guidelines, etc.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance trial (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant with due regard to the sentencing stated in its reasoning. The circumstances favorable to the above sentencing asserted by the Defendant in the lower court, such as the fact that the Defendant was led to the instant crime, the background leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances leading up to the use of the proceeds after the instant crime, and the family relationship, etc., were already determined and sufficiently considered.

In addition, in light of the frequency of arranging the instant crime, the amount that the Defendant acquired by committing the instant crime, the nature of the instant crime, and the Defendant’s punishment against the Defendant are limited to the maximum extent to which the amount was mitigated, the judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

In addition, there are changes in the conditions of sentencing in the court.